He should still be prosecuted. The mental health issues may be his defense.

I have looked a little further into it after making similar statements myself, and I think market manipulation has a relatively narrow legal definition involving actual trades. Musk's conduct is probably more likely to be pursued under a broader fraud statute, i.e. knowingly making material false claims about Tesla in his role as CEO.

He should still be prosecuted. The mental health issues may be his defense.

I have looked a little further into it after making similar statements myself, and I think market manipulation has a relatively narrow legal definition involving actual trades. Musk's conduct is probably more likely to be pursued under a broader fraud statute, i.e. knowingly making material false claims about Tesla in his role as CEO.

Isn't it just a pump and dump strategy? I would accuse him of pumping up his stock price with artificial news, and with the clear aim of trying to ensure that the short-sellers cannot cover the margin costs of their short position. SEC description.
One might want to accuse the short-sellers of market manipulation, but that is another argument entirely.

He should still be prosecuted. The mental health issues may be his defense.

I have looked a little further into it after making similar statements myself, and I think market manipulation has a relatively narrow legal definition involving actual trades. Musk's conduct is probably more likely to be pursued under a broader fraud statute, i.e. knowingly making material false claims about Tesla in his role as CEO.

Isn't it just a pump and dump strategy? I would accuse him of pumping up his stock price with artificial news, and with the clear aim of trying to ensure that the short-sellers cannot cover the margin costs of their short position. SEC description.
One might want to accuse the short-sellers of market manipulation, but that is another argument entirely.

At the very least, Mr. Musk’s announcement served Tesla’s purposes by boosting its share price. If it remains elevated, that could help the company hold on to much-needed cash, by giving it more flexibility in dealing with convertible bonds coming due soon.
Tesla has $920 million in convertible bonds that come due in March, with a conversion price of $359.87. If Tesla stock is below that level at the time, the company will have to spend cash to redeem the bonds; if the stock price is above that level, the convertible holders will convert them into Tesla shares, relieving the company of the need to lay out cash.
Tesla had $2.2 billion in cash on its balance sheet as of June 30 and free cash flow of negative $1.8 billion in the first half of 2018.
Tuesday’s spike took Tesla stock above the trigger price, and the shares remained above it Wednesday, though they slipped 2.4% to close at $370.34.

the stock price is $289 as of now.
if free cash flow continues at the same negative rate, tesla is out of cash in early 2019 and will need to find $1B to redeem those convertible bonds

evidently the market no longer believes that tesla is going private at $420

I did not see any Tesla's in Svalbard on my last visit, but then only about 14 km roads there... Most teslas sold in Oslo area, and Bergen and possibly Tronheim. Norway biggest buyer in Europe by far, twice as big as next country.

with only 14km road system u can probably always charge from your house, with a long cable!

Also London needs Teslas and other electric cars (Jag is coming with a decent one), kalashnikov cars also nice (replace the black-cabs) , way too much diesel there..

"London’s congestion charge has increased deadly diesel pollution, say scientists. It has reduced some forms of pollution such as carbon monoxide, particulate matter and nitrous oxide but it led to more miles being driven by diesel buses and taxis" The Sun

"When asked by Russian media outlet RBC what specific advantages the CV-1 has over a Tesla, Ivanova was unable to name any specifics. According to the company, the CV-1 can’t quite hold up in terms of acceleration, managing 0 to 62 mph in six seconds, far behind most Teslas. Still, no word yet on how many rounds per second it can fire." (PS Diesel cars also kills)

Why is it easier in Svalbard to use lethal than non-lethal means of protection against polar bears???

I don't know, I wanted to bring my bear spray (large pepper spray, supposedly very effective against grizzly bears, not sure it has been tested on polar) when I went there. but I looked up it was forbidden, it surprised me. But yes one are naturally supposed to try to scare it off with gun, but not sure polar bear so scared of guns, I think bear spray better, and possibly even safer. But naturally I follow the law of the Kingdom, so did not bring bear spray.

when walking in some bear land in USA I only had bear spray. But then they are quite friendly over there.

may be bear sprays got allowed this year? I don't know...

"Bear spray is a very effective deterrent when used properly. In a 2008 review of bear attacks in Alaska from 1985–2006, Smith et al. found that bear spray stopped a bear's "undesirable behavior" in 92% of cases. Further, 98% of persons using bear spray in close-range encounters escaped uninjured." wiki

"No bear spray has ever been reported to kill a bear. It is our belief that widespread use of bear spray will promote human safety and bear conservation.”